Again, :shadedshu we are obviously not talking about the same physics. CPU can't and never will be able to handle the kind of physics that GPUs or PPU can.

Click to expand...

Yes we are, it's called Havoc, it's been around for a long time which Intel bought up for further optimising for their CPU/GPU platforms, there is nothing PhysX can do that can't be done in the latest software based Havoc physics engine with a fast Quad in software. It will soon be optimised for the hybrid CPU/GPU platforms.

If a dedicated PPU was a must then both Intel and AMD would have taken that route long ago, nVidia doesn't have a CPU/GPU platform to run on.

The initial hybrid CPU/GPU chips will have a relatively weak GPU, but the integrated GPU can be used to process in-game physics only, the dedicated graphics card handles everything else.

Yes we are, it's called Havoc, it's been around for a long time which Intel bought up for further optimising for their CPU/GPU platforms, there is nothing PhysX can do that can't be done in the latest software based Havoc physics engine with a fast Quad in software. It will soon be optimised for the hybrid CPU/GPU platforms.

If a dedicated PPU was a must then both Intel and AMD would have taken that route long ago, nVidia doesn't have a CPU/GPU platform to run on.

The initial hybrid CPU/GPU chips will have a relatively weak GPU, but the integrated GPU can be used to process in-game physics only, the dedicated graphics card handles everything else.

Click to expand...

No, we aren't. I think you have never seen or understood what PhysX is about. The Havok API is as good or probably better than PhysX, I really don't know and I won't argue about that. BUT it only runs on CPU and CPUs don't have the kind of power that GPUs have now, but most importantly in the near future it will go worse (for the CPU). A 8400 GS has already a comparable power to that of a Quad core. Considering how you need the CPU for others tasks (AI, driving the renderer, the sound, the input...) a dedicated 8400 GS is well ahead. A very OCed Quad could match the 8400GS in performance, but wouldn't be able to touch the 8600GT/9500GT. Very few people have Quads yet, motherboards with 2 or 3 PCI Express slots are very common on the other hand. Tell me, what it is going to be easier and cheaper for the people in order to enable a lot better physics than what we have today? Throw away their C2D and buy a Quad ($200), then overclock the hell out of it. Or buy a 8600/9500GT for $50 and install some drivers?

As months pass it will be even better for the GPU solution. Nehalem is only 30% faster than Core2 clock for clock so it won't improve performance by much. How higher do you think they will go in clocks? On the other hand we know we will have the 9600GT/GSO even 9800GT or comparable cards in the $50-$100 segment really soon. 1.3X a current Quad for $200+ or 2X-3X a current low-end card?

EDIT: Intel didn't bought Havok to optimize it for their CPUs. They are the same Havok team who are doing the work and won't be able to optimize much further than what they did before. Anyway, Intel bought Havok to implement it on Larrabee or derivated enbedded solutions. So that's again Physics on a GPU, but Intel's will not come until 2010. Ageia is now.

My old PCI PhysX card was just that, a £80 piece of gimmick that did very little.

It was dead before nVidia bought up the dying Ageia company, and you are forgetting AMD's Fusion is only around the corner costing little more to integrate into the their CPU cores.

The industry has ignored the Ageia PhysX engine for years now, Havoc was bought BTW so intel can implement it on their Integrated GPU and a far cheaper solution than a dedicated card, hint hint.

The new Havoc hybrid CPU/GPU physics engine will still be the industry standard full stop.

Click to expand...

1- Fusion is still GPU. Havok will NOT do GPU physics anytime soon. IMO it will never do, it will always be x86 based, so that Larrabee derivatives have the edge.

2- The industry might have ignored Ageia IN THE PAST. More than 50 titles coming in the next months doesn't sound like they are ignoring it. I wouldn't be surprised if Ageia has more titles than Havok right now.

3- We don't know if Havok will continue in the lead. It probably isn't right now, let alone in the future. As I said NO "GPU" Havok (will always be based on x86, so sorry Ati) until Larrabee and that's 2010. Also the physics API used in the PS3 is PhysX, AFAIK XBox360 doesn't have any one defined. That makes a lot easier for developers to use Ageia for cross-platform compatibility.

Only time will tell, but as far as better physics is the concern, PhysX is the only way to go until 2010: Larrabee, DX11. And then it's going to be very easy for Nvidia/Ageia to move to DX11 physics. Nvidia has physics now, Intel and AMD only have promises for the future. And those promises are not about making something better, they just promise they will have the same as Ageia has right now.

My old PCI PhysX card was just that, a £80 piece of gimmick that did very little.

It was dead before nVidia bought up the dying Ageia company, and you are forgetting AMD's Fusion is only around the corner costing little more to integrate into the their CPU cores.

The industry has ignored the Ageia PhysX engine for years now, Havoc was bought BTW so intel can implement it on their Integrated GPU and a far cheaper solution than a dedicated card, hint hint.

The new Havoc hybrid CPU/GPU physics engine will still be the industry standard full stop.

Click to expand...

The industry ignored Physx in the past, but you are forgetting that nVidia has much more pull in the gaming market than a small company like Aegia did. Not only that, but you had to buy additional hardware for Physx to work in the past. Now, many people do not have to do that, because they already have a capable card if they own a card based on G80 or newer. That's a much larger installed user base than the original Aegia. That in and of itself makes it a much more tempting for developers to start using the API, as now, they have little to lose.

And the performance of Havoc on an Intel integrated GPU will never approach the performance capabilities of Physx on a dedicated NV card. Hell, it will never approach the performance of Physx running on Integrated NV graphics.

Intel is moving into graphics you know, they are making their own full-fledged GPU, not that dinky intel-onboard crap, and then they plan to bake that on the same die as the CPU I gather, at that point they might well walk all over nvidia.

Intel is moving into graphics you know, they are making their own full-fledged GPU, not that dinky intel-onboard crap, and then they plan to bake that on the same die as the CPU I gather, at that point they might well walk all over nvidia.

Click to expand...

we are all quite aware of intels larrabee plans here on TPU, its not going to compete with Nvidia and ATI at all in terms of GPU power, its going to be used in an entirely different market with its x86 capabilities.

we are all quite aware of intels larrabee plans here on TPU, its not going to compete with Nvidia and ATI at all in terms of GPU power, its going to be used in an entirely different market with its x86 capabilities.

Click to expand...

And to add to that, it has no effect on the market right now. It's not due out for another 2 years. That gives Physx plenty of time to get a foothold in the market.

Well 2 years or not I don't think intel is going to try to use havok on their current integrated stuff are they now, you would not even be able to tell if it had physics at 0.3 FPS, or you'd have to timelapse record it and then replay it at normal speed to enjoy it

Incidentally, I'm not sure why people buy that physics stuff anyway, I think newton put it in public domain back when.., basically any programmer should be able to code in some physics, and as for physics on the GPU, well the old GPU's were new and complex to put stuff like that on, but now that the world of gameprogrammers knows a lot about the GPU and the GPUs expanded their capabilities and much more documentation and examples are available I'm guessing it can't be that hard anymore to put your physics calculations on the GPU.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why people buy that physics stuff anyway, I think newton put it in public domain back when.., basically any programmer should be able to code in some physics, and as for physics on the GPU, well the old GPU's were new and complex to put stuff like that on, but now that the world of gameprogrammers knows a lot about the GPU and the GPUs expanded their capabilities and much more documentation and examples are available I'm guessing it can't be that hard anymore to put your physics calculations on the GPU.

Click to expand...

I found that quite funny. Many specialists in history of cience believe Sumerians invented maths and basic trigonometry back in 5000 BC (Egiptians used them in 3000 BC, anyway), so I guess anyone should be able to make CPUs, GPUs, renderers?

One thing is to put some known formulas into computer code, and another thing is to make a good (usable and complete) engine. Then the next level is to make it perform on real time. And one more step is where Ageia and Havok are.

Recently I decided it was the time to deal a bit with OpenGL programming, even though I don't like programming, just to use the coding "skills" I gathered at the uni and understand everything related to graphics a lot better. Just in one afternoon looking at it's internals (after another one remembering C/C++), I am pretty sure how to do a renderer. It's "easy". As easy as to know how to make a painting or an sculpture. Will I ever do a painting or an sculpture or an usable renderer? I'm going to give it a try, but don't have big hopes. You get the idea?

I did use newton because he's know for newtonian physics obviously and that works in the joke (and in simple programming), but he's not the only/first by any means.

And I know people who started programming from scratch and guess what? they added 'physics' by using the simple well know formulas from pythagoras and newton etcetera every kid learns on school, and it worked out fine, if you code an engine, which would be the people that buy licences of havok, then the added difficulty of 'physics' in minor really, you already define objects with 3d coordinates so to have some basic formulas like the simple gravity one in their behaviour isn't that high-brow really and I still don't see why you'd have to buy 3rd party stuff for it, in fact neither did the people that made crysis, they just added their own routines.

As for adding it to hardware, you think the intel engineers can't figure out basic trigonometry and the laws of physics? And what do you think is in those SSE[x] instructions anyway?

Plus to make ANY kind of game engine you must have collision detection and bounce andsoforth, that's not optional, not even in a 2D game.

I did use newton because he's know for newtonian physics obviously and that works in the joke (and in simple programming), but he's not the only/first by any means.

And I know people who started programming from scratch and guess what? they added 'physics' by using the simple well know formulas from pythagoras and newton etcetera every kid learns on school, and it worked out fine, if you code an engine, which would be the people that buy licences of havok, then the added difficulty of 'physics' in minor really, you already define objects with 3d coordinates so to have some basic formulas like the simple gravity one in their behaviour isn't that high-brow really and I still don't see why you'd have to buy 3rd party stuff for it, in fact neither did the people that made crysis, they just added their own routines.

As for adding it to hardware, you think the intel engineers can't figure out basic trigonometry and the laws of physics? And what do you think is in those SSE[x] instructions anyway?

Plus to make ANY kind of game engine you must have collision detection and bounce andsoforth, that's not optional, not even in a 2D game.

Click to expand...

So you didn't catch my point eh?

"Anyone" can program it, of course. But a completely different thing is to make a competent product. Why do you think people use 3rd party engines/renderers? Do you honestly believe a graphics engine is more complicated? IMO NO, that's why I said what I said in my previous post.

Also you have to put a lot of resources (money, man/time power etc.) into it. 3rd party middleware has only need to be done once and the expenses of making and updating it are paid by many developers , and not just one (when buying it, of course). Hell, by your logic, with the things I learnt at school/uni I could build my own house, almost everybody could, but we let architects and engineers do our houses don't we? There's a reason for that, and there is a reason for middleware (be it physics or game engines) to exist.

EDIT: And yes, Intel (Havok) can also do a good engine, they already have a good one. BUT as long as it is run on software it will never compete with Ageia. I mean it's simple to understand IMO.

Anyway the better answer it would have been. If anyone (I mean, let's say Intel, Nvidia) can do their own competitive engine why did they bought the physics companies? Intel with ALL THE MONEY and all the resources prefered to buy Havok instead. Think about that.

intel at some point suddenly desperately started to want to get into gaming for some reason, any way they can, even supporting in-game ads as the first ones to do so, and trying to make a (real)GPU and buying gamerelated companies, my guess is that they realised that there's tons of money in that world and/or they have a CEO that fancies the idea.

And no you aren't convincing me, sure it costs a little extra time(and therefore money) to get good physics in an engine, but you could just as easily argue 'why code an engine, why not simply buy the unreal one or something', point for me is that there's no need to buy physics for it perse, it's an option and it cuts some time, but that's all, it's not superhard to get your own physics going with the advantage that you are in control and know what you are doing and can add your own twist, and sell your engine to 3rd parties WITH physics without having to tell your customers 'Oh btw, you have to pay some other company money for the physics part of our engine', or having to buy a very expensive license that allows re-sale as part of your engine.
And yes, I think in fact a graphics engine from scratch IS more complicated than the physics part of an engine.

intel at some point suddenly desperately started to want to get into gaming for some reason, any way they can, even supporting in-game ads as the first ones to do so, and trying to make a (real)GPU and buying gamerelated companies, my guess is that they realised that there's tons of money in that world and/or they have a CEO that fancies the idea.

And no you aren't convincing me, sure it costs a little extra time(and therefore money) to get good physics in an engine, but you could just as easily argue 'why code an engine, why not simply buy the unreal one or something', point for me is that there's no need to buy physics for it perse, it's an option and it cuts some time, but that's all, it's not superhard to get your own physics going with the advantage that you are in control and know what you are doing and can add your own twist, and sell your engine to 3rd parties WITH physics without having to tell your customers 'Oh btw, you have to pay some other company money for the physics part of our engine', or having to buy a very expensive license that allows re-sale as part of your engine.
And yes, I think in fact a graphics engine from scratch IS more complicated than the physics part of an engine.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you are here, losing the time. Go do your own API and get rich. 95% of new games and developers use third party physics engines as well as third party game engines, or at least renderers. FYI NO a physics engine is not easier by any means, but if you feel it's easy do it yourself. Take those talented friends of yours you mentioned and do your own physics engine.

BTW then post here some betas, I'm sure most people here are willing to be your indian pigs for testing an engine made by a member. I'm already listed, so send me that beta first!

EDIT: Industry heavyweights as John Carmack, Tim sweeny, Tom Hall, Gabe Newell, George Broussard, Sid Meier (and a very long list of other ones that don't come to mind right now) make their own game engines, but all of them license third party physics. If you manage to make one, you can be proud of being smarter than them, so kudos.

Yeah that's it, as I don't have arguments against your overwhelming superior logic...
You are right, I am wrong. 95% of game developers are wrong. Are nothing more than a bunch of retarded bunnies, who know nothing about the bussiness in which they are working for more than 20 years now.

Well at least you opened my eyes. Please can you give me some clues as to what is the better way to make my own cloth, furniture and tools? Because I'm almost sure at this point that you make all those things for your own, since they are so much easier to do than the things we are talking about... I am sure you don't care to spend half an hour everyday for that purposes. Yeah now I understand, why would I spend money on those things when I can make them myself, I've been so stupid until now...

You are right, I am wrong. 95% of game developers are wrong. Are nothing more than a bunch of retarded bunnies, who know nothing about the bussiness in which they are working for more than 20 years now.

I said enough is enough, dont try to escalate this, continuation of your argument will result in contact to a mod and a censure to your actions. Also lets get back on Topic of the Matter, "not My E-Penis is bigger than yours" (childish arguments)